EU Rural Development Policy Evaluation by Juan Martín Merlo

Ex-post evaluation of LEADER approach delivery The Case of OZ- KRAS

Final Report of the Nitra Case Study 2014, 14.07.2014-08.08.2014 Organizing institute: Slovak University of Agriculture Instructor: Ing. Jela Tvrdoล ovรก, PhD. Participants: AMAYA ORTIZ, Luis Fernando AMPONY, Divine Koku DEPIO, Sheilla Anne LEVESQUE, Phillippe MERLO, Juan SOLETO, Ivan YAGOUBI, Jihad ZWART, Tjitske Anna

Table of contents

Table of contents ..................................................................................................................................... 0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 3 Chapter 1: LEADER and its Delivery Mechanism ................................................................................. 5 § 1.1 The RDP: An Overview ............................................................................................................. 5 § 1.2 Implementation through the delivery mechanism ...................................................................... 6 §1.2.1 MA Competences ................................................................................................................. 6 § 1.2.2 LAG Competences .............................................................................................................. 7 § 1.3 Steps in the delivery mechanism ................................................................................................ 9 1.3.1 RDP Level .............................................................................................................................. 9 1.3.2 LAG Level ............................................................................................................................ 10 Chapter 2: The 7 features of LEADER: definitions and benchmarks ................................................... 12 § 2.1 Area Based Local Development Strategies .......................................................................... 12 § 2.2 Bottom up Approach ............................................................................................................ 13 § 2.3 Local Public-Private Partnerships (PPP) .............................................................................. 13 § 2.4 Multi-sector Design .............................................................................................................. 14 § 2.5 Networking ........................................................................................................................... 15 § 2.6 Cooperation .......................................................................................................................... 16 § 2.7 Implementation of Innovative Approaches .......................................................................... 16 Chapter 3: Development of Evaluation Tools ....................................................................................... 18 §3.1 Interview Schedule .................................................................................................................... 18 §3.2 Focus Group Screen Play .......................................................................................................... 19 §3.3 Development of Evaluation Tools ............................................................................................. 19 §3.3.1 Pre-testing and Finalization of Evaluation Tools ............................................................... 20 § 3.3.2 Data collection and processing .......................................................................................... 20 Chapter 4. Description of the LAG territory ......................................................................................... 21 § 4.1 Employment by Sector ............................................................................................................. 21 § 4.2 Local Action Group OZ- KRAS............................................................................................... 22 Chapter 5: Synthesis of Results ............................................................................................................. 24 5.1 Interviews .................................................................................................................................... 24 5.1.1 Area Based ........................................................................................................................... 24 5.1.2 Bottom-up ............................................................................................................................. 24 1

5.1.3 Public-Private Partnership .................................................................................................... 25 5.1.4 Multi-sectorial design ........................................................................................................... 25 5.1.5 Networking ........................................................................................................................... 26 5.1.6 Cooperation .......................................................................................................................... 27 5.1.7 Innovation ............................................................................................................................. 27 5.2 Focus Group ................................................................................................................................ 28 Chapter 6: SWOT analysis .................................................................................................................... 30 6.1 Area Based .................................................................................................................................. 30 6.2 Bottom Up ................................................................................................................................... 30 6.3

Public-Private Partnership (PPP) ........................................................................................... 31

6.4

Multi-sector design ................................................................................................................ 31

6.5

Networking ............................................................................................................................ 32

6.6

Cooperation ........................................................................................................................... 32

6.7

Innovation.............................................................................................................................. 33

Chapter 7: Conclusions and recommendations ..................................................................................... 34 7.1 Area-based ................................................................................................................................... 34 7.2 Bottom Up ................................................................................................................................... 35 7.3 Public Private Partnership ........................................................................................................... 35 7.4 Multi-sector design ...................................................................................................................... 36 7.5 Networking .................................................................................................................................. 36 7.6 Cooperation ................................................................................................................................. 37 7.7 Innovation.................................................................................................................................... 38 References ............................................................................................................................................. 39 Annexes ................................................................................................................................................. 40

Introduction The concept of an integrated rural development has played a key role in the developmental programmes of the European Union (EU). A great deal of attention both in development plans and programmes, and in policy implementations are some of the concrete testimonies to this fact. Indeed, the EU is heading toward this direction because it realized, albeit belatedly, that an improvement in the working and living condition of rural the population should be an important priority toward the achievement of a balanced rural-urban development. The need for a holistic approach to rural development became very pressing and evidenced in the fact that in the proposal for a new rural development regulation (2007-2013) the EU had devoted a chunk of the EAFRD budget for the pursuance of the aims and objectives contained in the four Axes outlined by the regulation. At least 15% of the EAFRD resources are for the Improvement of agricultural competitiveness and Sylviculture, 25% for the Management of landscape and environment, 15% for rural economy diversification and quality of life in rural areas and 7% or more for carrying out actions corresponding to the objectives of one or several main axes according to a strategy of integrated local development- An approach referred to as LEADER. This strategy has been deliberately structured for implementation within the EU in order to avoid a paradoxical situation in which the rural people produce the bulk of the wealth and yet live and experience the most abject standard of living , mainly, because their wealth is siphoned off to develop the urban centres. The consequences have been divergent and cumulative, making for the perpetuation of high factor endowment, reduced employment, high productivity and high income for the great majority of the people in the rural areas. The group of students that took part in the Nitra Case Study 2014, comprising 14 IMRD Students and 1 Canadian student, were given the task to understand the mechanisms that drive this engine for rural development in the EU. Together with teachers and assistants, they were invited to the rural areas of Slovakia with the aim to analyse, impact and assess the delivery mechanisms that can make the success or failure of the LEADER approach. More specifically, the students carried out a “Ex post evaluation of LEADER delivery mechanism. The structure of the evaluation, and therefore this report, follows 7 key features (area based, top-down, innovation, private-public partnership, multi-sector design, networking, and cooperation)1 that the implementation of LEADER approach is expected to have -both at the RDP2 and LAG3 level. In order carry out the aforementioned evaluation the research team suggested the following leading question: “To what extent is delivery mechanism (at RDP and LAG level) supporting the implementation of 7 features of Leader approach?”. In turn, the following sub-questions corresponding to the 7 key features were designed with the aim of providing a guide to solve the overarching question: 1. Do LEADER interventions reflect the needs, diversity and interest of the territory? 2. In what extent LEADER approach has reinforced participatory approaches based on the subsidiarity principle? 3. How effective has been the collaboration between public and private sectors in LEADER implementation? 4. To which extent LEADER has been able to integrate different sectors? 1

The features are explained later in detail. RDP – rural development programme 3 LAG – local action group 2

5. To which extent LEADER has created linkages between different stake holders involved (LAGs and other organization involved in rural development)? 6. To what extent has LEADER promoted cooperation activities as transfer of information, good practices and know-how between rural areas? 7. Is the innovation clearly understood/embraced by LAGs participants and LEADER beneficiaries? – In what extent LEADER has allowed innovative initiatives in the rural sector in Slovakia?

On the basis of the theory that they acquired and with assistance of University of Nitra Staff, the students designed a set of evaluation tools in order to understand and ellaborate an assesment on the delivery mechanisms of LEADER in Slovakia, for the programming period 2007- 2013. Those tools were tested in Nitra Region, in two places, prior to their actual implementation on the field. After 3 days in the field, the students were visiting the Local Action Group (LAG) in OZ- KRAZ region and have conducted several individual interviews and a focus group discussion with local authorities, beneficiaries, social and private stakeholders and LAG managment staff in order to look for relevant data and information that provided information about the delivery mechanism for implementing LEADER in the region. The evaluation team has tried to compile enough information to answer the above referred questions and elaborate some recommendations which could be relevant to the different stakeholders involved in the process of LEADER implementation in Slovakia. In this regard, it is important to highlight that the number of interviews conducted is not representative of the situation in the country and just represent the conclusions obtained from the OZ – KRAS LAG experience. In sum, this report comprises a description of LEADER delivery mechanisms in Slovakia, a description of its features and a description of how the specific benchmarks for assessing the delivery mechanism were designed. Finally, the document presents a bundle of findings that suggest some particular conclusions and recommendations for the differents actors involved in the implementation of LEADER in OZ – KRAZ area.

Chapter 1: LEADER and its Delivery Mechanism Reinforcement of agricultural activities and rural development in convergence areas is one of the most important priorities for the Slovakian Republic since it joined the European Union. The Slovak government has implemented a strengthened legal and operational framework with the aim of helping farmers and rural inhabitants to address their economic, social and environmental needs. One of the most important tools in this endeavor has been the LEADER approach implementation in different regions of the country. With its implementation, the RDP has provided small farmers, rural villages and community-based organization with methodological, financial and operational tools to boost its local development, involving a wide range of partners at local level in steering the future development of its communities. In this section we will start by giving a general overview of the European Union Rural Development Policy (RDP). Afterwards, the most relevant actors in the delivery mechanism will be described. Next we will elaborate on the delivery mechanism at the RDP level, after which the delivery mechanism on the Local Action Groups (LAGs) level will be discussed.

Â§ 1.1 The RDP: An Overview Rural development in the European Union (EU) is managed through the second pillar of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). The fund for this axis is the European Agriculture Fund of Rural Development (EAFRD). The Strategic Planning of Rural Development is composed by the EU strategic guidelines for rural development, the National Strategic Plan for Rural Development, and the Rural Development Program (RDP). Each member state makes a National Strategic Plan (NSP), in which the national strategy towards rural development is being described. The NSP can be submitted for an entire country or for its regions separately. The RDP is subdivided in four axes, which are: 1) Improving the competitiveness of the agricultural and forestry sector, 2) Improving the environment and the countryside, 3) the quality of life in rural areas & diversification of the rural economy and 4) LEADER. This research focuses on LEADER -the fourth axis of the RDP- and its implementation in Slovakia during the period 2007-2013 (by taking OZ â&#x20AC;&#x201C; KRAZ area as an example). LEADER supports activities from the other axes, but in a different way. Instead of a top-down approach, a regional approach is taken in which the capacities from inside the territory are being used for development. LEADER is characterized by 7 different features: 1) Area-based local development strategies; 2) Bottom-up approach with decision power for LAGs; 3) Local public-private partnership; 4) Multisectorial design and implementation of strategies; 5) Implementation of innovative approaches; 6) Networking of local partnerships; and 7) Implementation of cooperation projects (Tvrdonova, 2014; Schwarz, 2014). In Slovakia, LEADER supports measures from the third axis of the RDP. As mentioned before, the third axis consists of three main groups, which in their turn are subdivided in different sets of measures. These sets are aimed at increasing the quality of life in rural areas and diversification of the rural economy (European Commission, 2006). From these measures, the following were chosen to be supported through the LEADER axis: 1) diversification into non-agricultural activities, 2) encouragement of tourism activities, basic services for the economy and rural population, 3) village renewal and development and 4) training and information (Schwarz, 2014). For the period 2007-2013, most submitted projects in Slovakia (46%) were focused on basic services for the economy and rural population, others (36%) were focused on village renewal and development 5

and the rest (12%) were aimed at diversifying the economy and consisted of 111 projects aiming at encouraging tourism and 39 in the field of training and information. There were 112 projects approved by LEADER despite the fact that 53% of the initial submitted projects in this axis were rejected. Slovakia does not share any projects with other regions, but there are 29 projects running in convergence with other local partners, a number representing 34% of all the submitted projects. There are 54 cooperation projects in effect, while 10 were rejected. As far as running costs and skills acquisition projects are concerned, 66% were accepted and 34% rejected. (Kuruczova, 2014)

Actors: Managing Authority, Paying Agency and Local Action Groups

In the implementation of the RDP different actors are involved. The European Network for Rural Development mentions the Managing Authority (MA), Paying Agency (PA) and Local Action Groups (LAGs) as some of the most important actors in Slovakia (ENRD, 2014). Therefore, these will be described in this paragraph. The first actor is the MA of the RDP, which in Slovakia is the Ministry of Agriculture. This body is responsible for program planning, implementation, delivery and evaluation of the RDP. In this sense, this body also defines a strategy for rural areas, using the LEADER approach. The MA designs the content of the LEADER axis, including the planning of the resources. The MA is responsible of ensuring that projects are selected correctly, according to the criteria applicable to the RDP. It also should ensure that beneficiaries and other bodies that are involved in the implementation of projects are informed about their obligations in relation to financial aspects and the provision of data for monitoring purposes. Lastly, it needs to ensure that the Paying Agency receives relevant information relating to the projects that have been selected for funding. (ENRD, 2014) Next to it is the PA, which is a department or body of each MS. Their most important tasks are to check the eligibility of requests, the procedure for allocating aid and their compliance with community rules, before the payment is authorized. Also, they are responsible to keep accurate accounts of the payments. In Slovakia, the PA was introduced on the 1st of December 2003. In the programming period 2007-2013, it had the implementation of the following measures: RDP for Slovakia 2007-2013, CAP and to administer state aid in the framework of legislation of the EU and Slovakia (Kuruczova, 2014). Lastly there are the LAGs, which are the most important actors in the LEADER approach. They develop local strategies, support stakeholder networking and the appraisal and approval of individual LEADER projects. LAGs are expected to carry out capacity building activities for local actors, draw up project selection criteria and assess and select projects that will obtain financing under the Local Development Strategy (LDS). Lastly, they should monitor the implementation of the LDS and the supported projects. Next to this, LAGs can also fulfil additional functions (Tvrdonova, 2014; ENRD, 2014). ยง 1.2 Implementation through the delivery mechanism The way in which LEADER is being implemented can be divided into two levels. First, decisions are being made by the Managing Authority (MA) that are then transferred to the level of the Local Action Groups (LAGs). Several steps have been defined in this process. Both levels will be discussed in this section, after which the steps will shortly be elaborated upon. ยง1.2.1 MA Competences 6

As has been mentioned before, it is the task of the Managing Authority to elaborate the National Strategy. In this regard, the national authorities have elaborated the LEADER National Strategy and have proceeded launching the LEADER National Guidelines for the programming period of 20072013. Since the beginning of the program, several awareness and training activities have been conducted for the Ministry of Agriculture (MA) and the Agriculture Payment Agency. Different steps can be identified at this level that is relevant for the management and setting up of LAGs. The most important steps in this process are: 

Call for proposals: In total 29 LAGs have been selected for the Paying Agency (PA), 15 by the end of 2008 and 14 by January of 2010. The MA has delegated the call for proposals for LAGs to the PA delegation of MA and the APA designed the call for proposals for LAGs at country level (European Commission, 2006).



Evaluation of proposals: The PA coordinates the evaluation process the selection of LAGs. In order to this, the PA conducts administrative controls, reviews the eligibility criteria of LAGs (which are described in detail in the LEADER National Guidelines) and makes a comprehensive revision of eligibility of expenditures included in the proposals. This revision is supported by two independent external evaluators, who review the selection criteria and make a qualitative assessment of the strategies in the LAG proposal. The main topics evaluated are the partnership related criteria, the integration of a Local Development Strategy (LDS) and the coherence with territory contexts and needs4.



Contract Signing: In this stage, a formal agreement between the PA and the selected LAGs is made. In each contract the strategy, measures to implement and budget plan are described. There is also an agreement on administrative management of public funds for the LAGs.



Strategy Updates: Each year, LAGs have the option to review and adjust their measures and budget according to the needs in their territory. If relevant, the PA is responsible for coordinating this revision.



Monitoring of LAGs performance and activities: The PA is responsible for supporting and monitoring the activities of the LAGs. Among its responsibilities are the revision of administrative, financial and technical issues of management and project implementation.



Evaluation: The PA is responsible of design the TORs and contract the evaluation. The European Union – Court of auditors could commission one or more external evaluations. The Ministry of Agriculture has undertaken a mid-term and final evaluation of LEADER National Strategy.

§ 1.2.2 LAG Competences At the territorial level, it is the Local Action Groups (LAG) that have the responsibility to operationalize the LEADER approach. The implementation process relies on how the principles of the seven features of LEADER are put into practice. Before the actual implementation, it is important to reinforce the capacities at the local level, gather the necessary information about the territory, analyse its strengths and weaknesses, develop an information and communication plan to explain LEADER 4

The document for 2007 - 2013 has included the following criteria for selection: i) the selection procedure ensuring competition between LAGs no later than 2 years after approval of programs; ii) Budget availability and possible allocation for LAG granted; iii) selection criteria for the LAGs (following the guidelines of EU and National Guidelines for LEADER; iv) maximum number of LAGs; v) justification for selected rural areas for LEADER implementation; vi) templates for LAG ´s proposal submission; vii) legal and administrative requirements for LAGs and; viii) Timeframe of the tender process. For further details on selection criteria, please review the LEADER National Guidelines 2007 – 2013 - Slovak Republic

principles and approach and start to create partnerships within the territory (European Commission, 2006). The steps in the delivery mechanism of LEADER that can be identified at this level are the following: 

Development of partnership: In this stage, linkages between local structures and national RDP authorities (Ministry of agriculture and Paying agencies) are being established;



Setting-up partnership structures and bodies: Here, LAGs are being created and its bodies (Supreme, executive, statutory, supervisory bodies) are constituted;



Strategy approval: The strategies for each territory are proposed and implemented by the executive body of the LAG according to the criteria set at the RDP level, and approved by the supreme body;



Call for proposals: communication of the LAG about the projects they propose in line with the strategy agreed on;



Selection committee evaluation and selection: The LAG manager and the selection committee make the first administrative check of project proposals to verify the compliance with the eligibility criteria before handing them to the paying agency;



Approval of the projects by the paying agency: the project proposals are checked a second time by the paying agency. LAGs are passive actors at this stage, awaiting for the paying agency’s decision;



Communication of the paying agency’s decisions to the beneficiaries:



Contract signing: At this stage, the signing of the contract happens between the paying agency and the final beneficiaries;



Strategy updates: the executive body prepares and implements the updates, which have to be approved by the supreme body;



Monitoring and evaluation: Projects are monitored and evaluated by the supervisory body.

§ 1.3 Steps in the delivery mechanism After reading the guidelines and the presentation from the Agricultural Ministry and the Payment Agency we have summarized the LEADER delivery mechanism at the RDP and LAG level. In the following table we make a brief description of each step of the delivery mechanism:

1.3.1 RDP Level Table 1. Delivery Mechanism at the RDP Level PRE- ASSESMENT



NATIONAL STRATEGY



   

NATIONAL GUIDELINES

     

GUIDELINES UPDATES AWARENESS CREATION



CAPACITY BUILDING



CALL PROPOSALS

FOR



 

Gather preliminary information about rural development situation, growth rate, most relevant productive activities, country priorities and most relevant strategies to promote sustainable growth of the sector. Slovakia as an EU member has submitted a National Strategic plan for 2007 – 2014 setting up priorities for action for European Agriculture Fund of Rural Development (EAFRD), taking into the account the guideline, the specific objectives and the contribution from the EAFRD fund and other sources of funding. Assessment of the economic, social and environmental situation. Thematic and territorial priorities under each axis, including the main quantified objectives and appropriate indicator for monitoring and evaluation. List of rural development programs. Measures of the Axis 4 – Leader to implement in Slovakia (implemented through technical measures of the Axis 3). Budget availability. Procedures and conditions for eligibility of the LAGs Legal and administrative framework. Definition of Payment agency responsibility. Financial reports Changes on the guidelines (financial, legal, administrative and program adjustments to the national guidelines). The Ministry and Payment Agency spread the information about LEADER National Guidelines through small regional workshops, leaflets, website updates, awareness sessions with key stakeholders at regional level, etc. Through providing specific training to the LAGs interested regarding of operational issues of LEADER, selection criteria, strategies adaptation, financial and legal arrangements and technical issues of the program. The ministry of Agriculture and the Agricultural Payment Agency (APA) are on charge of the process. The APA elaborates the call for proposal based on the LEADER National Guidelines and the Rural Development National Strategy. The selection procedure ensuring competition between LAGs no later than 2 years after approval of programs. The Call for proposal specifies the budget, clear indication of selection 9

   EVALUATION PROPOSALS

OF Selection of the local action groups (LAGs) 

 



CONTRACT SIGNING

  

STRATEGY UPDATES MONITORING THE LAGs

criteria for the LAGs, planned maximum number of LAGs, planned percentage of rural territories covered by local development strategies, justification for selection areas. The templates for present the proposal Legal and financial requirements. Timeframe of the tender process.



EVALUATION



Partnership related criteria: i) Be responsible for the implementation of the strategy: ii) Representative of partners from the various locally based socio-economic sectors; iii) At decision-making level representation of the economic and social actors of territory (at least 50% of the total partnership); iv) Ability to define and implement a development strategy; and v) Ability to manage public funds. Strategy related criteria: Integrated local action strategy. Territory: Coherent area and critical mass to support a viable development strategy. Formal agreement between APA and selected LAGs. Each LAG has to sign in a contract, the strategy and budget. Agreement on administrative management of public funds for the LAGs. The contract lasts for 7 years. Each year the measures budget could be reviewed and adjusted, depending on the implementation. In charge of the PA in annual basis (administrative, financial and technical issues). The Payment Agency is in charge of design the TORs and contract the evaluation. The European Union – Court of auditors could commission one or more external evaluations. The Ministry of Agriculture has undertaken a mid-term and final evaluation of LEADER National Strategy.

1.3.2 LAG Level Table 2. Delivery Mechanism at the LAG Level DEVELOPMENT PARTNERSHIP

 

SETTING UP PARTNERSHIP STRUCTURE AND BODIES

 

Include proportionally public and private sector stakeholders (50% Private and 50% Public). Include participant that represent different groups, regions and activities within the territory. Constitute legally structure in administrative and financial matters of the LAG. Clear selection of the LAG Bodies (Management board, monitoring committee and LAG Management Unit). 10

STRATEGY APPROVAL



Assure widespread knowledge among partners about approved LAG – Local Development Strategy.

CALL FOR PROPOSALS

  

Carry-out capacity building for local actors. Draw up project selection criteria Assess and select operation for financing under the Local Development Strategy (LDS). Ensure that all the stakeholders and potential beneficiaries are informed about the call for proposals, the measures included, the selection criteria and procedures to access funds. Provide technical assistance to potential beneficiaries in project design and preparation process. Establish a clear set of parameters to assess in equal manner all the project proposals presented for each measure. Provide the evaluation score to the LAG Management board in order to approve or not approve the projects. Provide feedback in order to improve the quality of projects before that be submitted to the Payment Agency.

  SELECTION COMMITTEE EVALUATION/SELECTION

  

PROJECTS APPROVED BY PAYMENT AGENCY (APA)



Technical and financial clearance.

INFORM BENEFICIARIES



SIGN CONTRACTS WITH APA FINANCIAL BODIES



The LAG is in charge of informing the beneficiaries and guides the process. Contract signing (if the project is finally approved).

STRATEGY UPDATES

 

MONITORING EVALUATION

 

Every year the Management Board reviews with support of LAG Management staff the implementation of the LDS and review the possible updates (following LEADER National guidelines). In the case of updated, LAG´ General Assembly is in charge of the approval. The update should be submitted to the PA. The LAG is accountable for review the implementation of each project (as per the LDS). This task should be coordinated with the APA.

Chapter 2: The 7 features of LEADER: definitions and benchmarks LEADER approach is a unique approach and an important constituent of the European Union’s Rural Development policy which makes it separate from the other 3 Axis of the Rural Development Support. It is aimed at using local initiative to improve the development potential of the rural areas and also encouraging the acquisition of knowledge on local integrated development so as to spread this knowledge to other rural areas. This approach comprises of seven important characteristics which are outlined below. A general description of these characteristics is based on general ideas developed by the students for this particular occasion. They will serve as a basis for the formulation of the benchmarks and will further act as guidelines in determining the success of the delivery mechanism of the LEADER approach at both RDP and LAG level.

§ 2.1 Area Based Local Development Strategies These strategies describe the main characteristics which make up an area. Such features make an area distinct from another area and enable its inhabitants to stay closer to each other. They are not only administrative related but comprise of other characteristics such as: 

Geographical characteristics which demonstrate the potential of an area such as: natural Resources, climate, topography



The Identity of an area is what portrays the symbolic aspects of an area most of them are generational and therefore are not easily modified. They include: cultures, norms, traditions, language and religion amongst others



Socio-Economic specificity which includes: various sectors of income generating activities taking place in an area.



History (political): Most infrastructure and administration is set up based on previous historical experiences.



Demographic characteristics: The composition of an area is based on characteristics such as: age, gender, income level and marital status.



Education/Information play a major role in strengthening the capacities of area based strategies; because a more educated and informed area is more receptive to new ideas easily adapts to new strategies.



Networks/Social organizations enable the creation of linkages between and within regions.

Benchmarks



There exists a strong identity between local inhabitants which enables them to work in a better and efficient way with the topics that concern them.



Each area is homogeneous in their language, their customs, their interests and they find it easy to work together and contribute towards their goals and ideals.



The planned and implemented socio economic activities are a function of the diversity of sectors



Improved education and better information techniques enable broader access to information and enhanced communication tools and methods



There exist strong linkages within and between regions as a result of a good network base.



Existence of a strong education base coupled with strong linkages and broader access to information creates more opportunities which hinder out-migration and permit immigration.

§ 2.2 Bottom up Approach This approach makes use of community based knowledge and involves the participation of all local actors in decision making. It is the complete opposite of “Top-down” approach; implying that there is no hierarchy in the process. 

Leadership roles are shared among local actors within the community



Part of the financial resources is mobilized by the community



Some level of skill is required to enable better decision making

Benchmarks 

Local actors are actively involved in every step of the decision making process.



Local resources are used efficiently to avoid wastage and help the economy.



Strategies designed takes into account the interests of all groups/sectors. Thus giving them a chance to voice their concerns.



Local actors are as heterogeneous as the population itself and are able to provide information and get feedback on decisions made.



Decisions are made with a broad consensus where agreements are reached based on participatory processes from all members involved.

§ 2.3 Local Public-Private Partnerships (PPP) They foster the sharing of knowledge, experiences and resources between the private and the public sector within the community. In these partnerships, there is an equal balance between the two sectors in terms of voice, power, resources and collaboration. This is based on trust and cooperation between both parties who are equally committed. In these partnerships, the two sectors involved act as complements to each other Benchmarks 13



Partners are given a chance to share their ideas and experiences and elaborate them in the decision making process so as to maintain an equal balance.



All cross-cutting themes are mainstreamed in every policy evaluation strategy (gender equality, climate change, environmental sustainability, democracy)



All partners are held accountable for their actions and their partnership is based on trust.



The partnership is composed of 50% private and 50% public

§ 2.4 Multi-sector Design This multidisciplinary approach involves combination of different sectors and strategies to achieve an integrated view of reality. This involvement enables participation and decision making is based on various ideas. All the strategies implemented are aimed at achieving a common objective. Benchmarks 

There is equal representation of stakeholders present in the territory at the moment of designing local development strategies.



Needs and interest from different sectors are considered and evaluated in order to be included in the strategy



The design of local development strategies encourages positive synergies among different sectors within the territory( geographic, social, economic)



The implementation of local development strategies has assured integrated effort to develop the territory between different sectors, regions and groups.

Social Perspective

Environment al Perspective

Economic Perspective

Political perspective

TERRITORY COMMON OBJECTIVE

Agriculture

Education

Employment

Symbolic Aspects

Transportation

Health

GOALS

COMMON OUTCOMES

Figure 1. Multi-sector Design

ยง 2.5 Networking Networking is the dispersal of information by the linkages of individuals or groups. It is aimed at creating bonding and linking relationships to enable the sharing of ideas, thoughts, and feelings. The various means by which networking can be achieved are: through social media, word of mouth, formal and informal occasions. Through networking, there is coordination of information, enhanced communication, participation and increased awareness which create more opportunities. This in turn enables a shared vision. 15

Benchmarks 

There is better communication and increased awareness within and across the territories; thus better cooperation



All actors in the local community are involved in the coordination of activities relating to them



Feedback is enabled through effective coordination and collaboration of projects and other activities at community level



Growth and cooperation are fostered as a result of new opportunities and better performance

§ 2.6 Cooperation Cooperation is aimed at bringing actors together, to participate and share common objectives that they could not manage individually. This increases the benefits of projects and activities for the parties involved especially those which could not be achieved on an individual basis. Resources are effectively utilized and this maintains efficiency. It is also a way of creating new learning opportunities. Cooperation is based on trust. Benchmarks 

There is a two way communication between all actors with full transparency within the system.



Coordination among actors results in efficient and optimal allocation of resources



Better actions are reached as a result of common interests with diverse talents



Cooperation creates possible linkages with other sectors/areas/regions/countries/with similar needs and approaches



There is a conducive environment which fully supports a self regulatory system with no external influence



Trust is strengthened as a result of a strong social capital within the system and amongst the different actors



Cooperation brings a constant development of capacities

§ 2.7 Implementation of Innovative Approaches 

Innovative approaches consist of new ways to do things; either externally or internally, by identifying the existing knowledge or ideas to improve on a situation.



This can be spread across a variety of sectors.



Innovation exists when there is an effective change in the existing situation and where the ideas are adapted.

Benchmarks 16



Governance is based on leadership within the community in a democratic way



Multi sectoral production takes place in areas where different sectors of activities can be an innovation in itself



New forms of technologies including machinery and software are introduced and adapted in areas where they didn’t exist before



External knowledge is disseminated between individuals within and across regions



New methods of using local resources are developed

Chapter 3: Development of Evaluation Tools For the purpose of evaluating the LEADER delivery mechanism the research group developed two different tools that were used during fieldwork: an interview schedule and a focus group screen play (see Annex 1 and 2, respectively, for further reference). This section details the theoretical characteristics of both tools as well as how these tools came to be. The theoretical information was retrieved from Satistics Canada (2013), Gill et al (2008) and Nitra Case Study (2014) lecture materials.

Â§3.1 Interview Schedule The tool or instrument for data collection in interview method is called interview schedule or questionnaire. Interview is the main method for collecting data in qualitative research. It involves trained interviewers visiting people to collect questionnaire data in face-to-face situation. Qualitative methods, like interviews are believed to provide a 'deeper' understanding of social phenomena. Interviews are, therefore, most appropriate where little is already known about the study phenomenon or where detailed insights are required from individual participants. Structured interviews are more structured in questions and the more limited the scope of possible answers. When designing an interview schedule it is imperative to ask questions that are likely to yield as much information about the study phenomenon and also be able to address the aims and objectives of the study. In a qualitative interview, good questions should be open-ended, neutral and understandable. It is usually best to start with questions that respondents can answer easily and then proceed to more difficult or sensitive topics. This can help respondents to build up confidence and rapport and often generates rich data. The question used in interview schedule may open or close or both. The open question allows the respondent to interpret the question and answer it anyway he or she desires. The closed question restricts the respondent to select an answer from the specified response options. For the interviewees, a closed question is easier and faster to answer and for the interviewer, closed questions are easier and less expensive to code and analyze. The purpose of the interviews are to explore the ideas, views, experiences, beliefs and/or motivations of individual respondents on specific matters. They are also particularly appropriate for exploring sensitive topics, where participants may not want to talk about such issues in a group environment.

Advantages, Limitations and Preconditions of Interviews It is a good approach for ensuring a high response rate to a sample survey, and trained interviewers gather better quality data. In qualitative assessment are used in various settings such as, for the analysis of behaviour and structural patterns, for the interpretative analysis of narratives (e.g. about critical incidents) and the exploration of stakeholdersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; mind-sets. There are some limitations to the interview method. Respondents may not always be available for interviews and the travel costs of the interviewer could be high. It reaches only a part of the programme-related population and depends on the willingness of addressees to respond. Sometimes, problem of the researcherâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s bias in the selection of the interviewees and by the way he/she poses questions may hamper the process of real data gathering. Lastly, the following pre-conditions are necessary for the interview of data collection. 18



Identify the most relevant person to interview.



Set up the right environment



Design the structure of interview



Design relevant questions to answer

§3.2 Focus Group Screen Play Focus groups share many common features with less structured interviews. A focus group is a group discussion on a particular topic organized for research objectives. Focus group consist of a small number of individuals brought together to discuss a topic of interest, and comprise not less than 7 and not more than 15 people, a far as possible stemming from different sub-groups of stakeholders (e.g. Managing Authority, implementing body, beneficiaries, independent experts, etc.). It should be facilitated by an external moderator, usually comes together several times; it can as well be installed as a core element for the continuance of an on-going evaluation Focus groups are used for gathering information on collective views, and the meanings that lie behind those views. They are also helpful in generating a rich understanding of participants' experiences and beliefs.

Advantages, Limitations and Preconditions of Focus Groups Focus groups allow verifying collected qualitative and quantitative evidence with various types of stakeholders at the same time. They reflect the universe of intervention’s stakeholders in a nutshell and are the instruments for institutional learning. Area-based perspective of focus group discovers important factors that are not observed by the other evaluation tools. They are also some disadvantages of focus groups. Focus groups involve only a small number of people and topics. It is therefore of utmost importance to pick the ‘right people’, to find the right mix, and to avoid ‘one-way thinking’ in the selection of participants. They only sketch the topic at a certain moment of time. Unless they are repeated across time, they cannot provide a picture on the trends and tendencies. Finally, the following pre-conditions are considered for the focus grpoups 

Identification of the most relevant participants.



Carefully prepared method to run the focus group.



Design relevant key questions to answer.

§3.3 Development of Evaluation Tools The main objective of the case study is to evaluate the delivery mechanism of LEADER approach. The research team decided to use an interview schedule and a focus group screen play for this purpose; a mixed method approach for data collection. 19

Before preparation of the tools, a group exercise was done on 21 July 2014, to determine the key steps of LEADER delivery mechanism at RDP and LAG level. The seven features and bench mark of LEADER approach were also defined by the group exercise. Then, the seven features were linked to the key steps of delivery mechanism at RDP and LAG level. A draft of the tools was prepared on 22 July 2014 by carefully keeping the seven features and the steps of the delivery mechanism in mind. In the case of the questionnaire, both open and closed questions were used, each of them aimed at addressing the features of LEADER. In the case of the focus group, three activities were designed with the purpose of retrieving in-depth and comprehensive information pertaining each feature of LEADER that would complement and/or build on the information provided in the interviews. §3.3.1 Pre-testing and Finalization of Evaluation Tools Pre-testing is a fundamental step in developing evaluation tools. This allows the research team to establish if (1) the schedule is clear, understandable and capable of answering the questions and (2) if the activities designed for the focus group were reliable, engaging and allow for in-depth and dynamic discussions. In case that this was otherwise the team would know that changes to the evaluation tools were required. Testing also helps to identify errors, poor wording or ordering of questions/activities and determine problems caused by the respondent’s inability or unwillingness to answer the questions in the case of an interview, and the group’s lack of interest in actively participating, in the case of a focus group. Keeping the above importance of pre-testing in mind, prior to final data collection, the draft interview schedule and focus group screen play were pre-tested in regional Local Action Groups on 23-24 July 2014. After pre-testing, the results of pre-test were reviewed and re-discussed by group exercise on 25 July 2014. During group exercise by the students, necessary corrections, alterations, modifications and adjustments were followed to prepare the final questionnaire and focus group based on pre-test responses and activities. The final version of the interview schedule consisted of a 6 page document that included 12 closed and open-ended questions. After the pre-tests, a thorough review, rephrase and rearrangement of the questions was carried out incorporating the feedback form the research team. The final version of the focus group screen play consisted of 3 interactive activities and an introduction session aimed at building confidence between the research team and the group of respondents. The activities were redesigned and expanded after the pre-test as it became clear for the research team that they had to keep the focus group attendants engaged throughout the session. The final and corrected versions of the evaluation tools are included in the Appendix.

§ 3.3.2 Data collection and processing Data were collected from the local action group beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries respondents by the case study students themselves during 28-30 July 2014. Before starting collection of data, the students first met the Manager of Local Action Group. The research team requested the Manager of the LAG to provide with a varied and representative sample that would include a balanced mix of actors (e.g. gender, age, sectors, etc.) from the area. Finally, data were gathered from the respondents with the cordial help of the Manager of Local Action Group. During the data collection activities, the interviewers first established rapport with the interviewees and explained the objectives of the study clearly by using local language with the help of facilitators. For focus group, the large group of respondents was sub-divided into smaller groups consisting of 3-4 members. Then the questions were asked them for group discussion. After group discussion, they provided their probable feedback of each interactive session. Cordial cooperation was 20

received from the respondents, Local Action Group personnel, local leaders and elites in various manners during staying in the study area. Then, collected data were compiled and analyzed according to the objectives of the study.

Chapter 4. Description of the LAG territory The Slovak republic is divided into eight self-governing regions also known as “Kraj” in Slovak. Within each region are several districts. This case study was conducted in Rožňava, one of the 11 districts within Košice region in the middle of Eastern Slovakia. As of December 2013, the district was made up of 62 municipalities of which only 2 were regarded urban. Rožňava district covers a total area of 1,173km2, is inhabited by approximately 63,000 people 49% of whom were male with a population density of 54persons per km².

Figure 2. Map of Self-governing Regions in Slovakia

§ 4.1 Employment by Sector The majority of the working force in the region is employed in trade (including transport, accommodation, food), public administration and industry. Even then the rate of unemployment in the

region remains a challenge which has caused large volumes of outmigration by especially the youth from most parts of the region. Figure 3. Distribution of Sectors of the Economy

§ 4.2 Local Action Group OZ- KRAS We visited a Local Action Group called “OZ- KRAS” located in the neighborhood of Slovak Karst National Park. The LAG territory consists only 19 of the 62 municipalities in Rožňava district. These include; Ardovo, Bohúňovo, Bretka, Čoltovo, Dlhá Ves, Gemerská Hôrka, Gemerská Panica, Hrhov, Hrušov, Jablonov nad Turňou, Kečovo, Kunova Teplica, Meliata, Pašková, Plešivec, Silica, Silická Brezová, Silická Jablonica, and Slavec. The territory has an area coverage of 354.41 km2 and a population of 11,734 inhabitants.

Figure 4. Territorial Map of OZ- KRAS LAG

The origin of this partnership traces back to 2001 when seven of the nineteen municipalities came together with the aim of promoting tourism and other local development initiatives. By 2006 the number of municipalities in this consortium had reached 34 however due to variations in ideologies during strategy formation, some municipalities exited leaving only nineteen at the time the group was awarded the status of LAG on 19th May 2010. Currently, fifty nine (59) members comprised of 19 municipality representatives, entrepreneurs, Non Governmental Organizations , Civil Society and Cooperatives constitute the supreme body of the LAG (Annexed). Representatives of the various parties in the LAG are between the ages of 40-60 years and 37% of the LAG members are female. Majority of the LAG members are either engaged in Agriculture or services that support the tourism sector. Whereas the LAG territory does not cover the entire district, all municipalities that the LAG area covers are represented in LAG membership. Management of the LAG is by the general assembly, management board, section committee and monitoring & control committee. The 50-50 composition in LAG management is observed with five members representing public institutions and six members from the private sector. In line with the resources/economy of the region, the strategy of LAG is to develop the tourism sector and improve livelihoods for the people in the territory through various development initiatives including increasing visibility of the territory and decreasing unemployment.

Chapter 5: Synthesis of Results The following chapter comprises a synthesis of the results from the field research carried out in Rožňava through a series of interviews and a focus group.

5.1 Interviews There were six interviews in total, the research team managed to talk to two LAG members -the Manager, the Manager Assistant and the Manager of a Co-operative-, two Mayors an one beneficiary who was not a member of the LAG. The results of the interviews have been summarized according to each LEADER feature and a leading question for each has been included as a cue to guide the results and make them more concrete.

5.1.1 Area Based Question: Do LEADER interventions reflect the needs, diversity and interest of the territory?

In the case of Rožňava region, LEADER has contributed to reinforce territorial identity and social linkages among rural communities in the territory. However, small conflicts of interest still persist, especially in some regions in which the ethnicities have different set of rules of behaviour. As per the answers provided by different actors of the LAG and beneficiaries, the LAG composition is not a fully representation of all relevant sectors within the territory (gender, age distribution, socioeconomic characteristics, ethnic). Women representativeness was near to 40%, however, according to the respondents, this fact does not represent effects on equality and support to women within the LAGs. In turn, the small participation of young persons in the LAG is an issue that should be addressed. Projects supported by LEADER are strengthening the strategic use of local resources in Rožňava, favouring the development of the territory. People realize the value and potential of local resources and products, and promote their use. Due to the characteristics of the territory and current social and economic situation (unemployment), tourism has become the main driver of development within LEADER. Preservation of local customs and traditions – e.g. weaving, cow bells, shepherd sticks, recipes, gastronomy are also important activities supported.

5.1.2 Bottom-up Question: To what extent LEADER approach has reinforced participatory approaches based on the subsidiarity principle? Regarding the decision making process within the LAG, all decisions in the LAG are reached by majority consensus using open voting system. Projects are widely evaluated before selection and then there is an open discussion about issues related to the territory. 24

LAG makes an effort to spread out the information about the strategies and territory priorities in order to encourage the whole population to participate in the design of the strategy and priorities of the territory. Nevertheless there is a gap of communication between the LAG, APA and MA resulting in a reduction of a real bottom-up process in the decision-making process in the design of the strategy and priorities of the territory. Participation by non -members or people outside the LAG territory is limited notably due to the methods used to disseminate information; emails, municipality board, web page, etc. It seems that the information are spread mainly by networks that already exist, thus if it is difficult that the information reaches a significant majority of the population in the territory if they are not involve in those existing networks. Moreover, the lack of knowledge regarding the bureaucratic process by the beneficiaries has created a high dependence on LAG management because they depend on them to present their proposals. Finally, open voting system may also impede independence with public authorities seeking to impose projects of their interest. 5.1.3 Public-Private Partnership Question: How effective has been the collaboration between public and private sectors in LEADER implementation? According to the data gathered on the field about how the public-private partnerships developed through the LEADER programme in Rožňava, it is believed that these partnerships existed before; nevertheless they have been considerably strengthened through the LAG’s work. In fact, following the 51%-49% rule, the LAG as well as its management is well balanced between public and private members. From the private partners’ point of view, LAGs enable them to get the public support, and from the public sector’s side, it became easier to promote projects for the municipalities or regions through LAG’s support, for which the cooperation with private actors is a necessary condition. It is indeed easier for all the stakeholders to get public funding through a LAG than directly from the paying agency, considering that currently, an important share of the projects approved and undertaken in Slovakia are focused on the Bratislava region. In addition to that, some of the private actors interviewed expressed their concern about corruption issues that seem to be minimised through the development of local governance structures, hence the LAGs that require a fair cooperation between both sectors. Nevertheless, the current public-private partnerships still have to consolidated and present some weaknesses. First of all, the main issue in that sense is of the misunderstanding of the finality of the partnership required by LEADER, yet a fair share of the actors are still motivated to collaborate with the other sector only for the financial support that the partnership eventually brings. In addition to that, if the participation of different actors has been reinforced, especially that of private actors and social entities (NGOs, CBOs, etc.), most of the projects are still devoted to cover public budget gaps at village level, and Mayors still have a significant power in funds allocation. 5.1.4 Multi-sectorial design Question: To which extent LEADER has been able to integrate different sectors?

From the interviews and focus group discussions it came to the fore that a lot is happening in the field of multi-sectorial design. On the one hand, actors are diversifying their focuses compared to their activities before LEADER came into being. One can think of marketing, (agro) tourism, education and the production and preservation of local products and traditions. Also, more value is being added to existing products and resources. For example, markets for local products are being organized in which actors from different sectors can market their products. Examples of this may be weaving, the making of cow bells and shepherd sticks, gastronomy, etcetera. On the other hand, two problems can be pointed out. First, the guidelines only provide possibilities for funding for touristic measures. Worse, only existing touristic facilities can be renovated, new facilities cannot supply for the support. It seems that because of this, the territory is not able to live up to its full potential, and the inclusion of different sectors in all steps of the delivery mechanism is inhibited. Secondly, some sectors seem not to see the use of getting involved in LEADER projects, because of the limited possibility for funding. This shows that the mind-set of many players from different sectors is mainly focused on the financial support that LEADER might provide, which may be an impediment for the inclusion of other sectors. This is not to say that opening the guidelines for all possible measures in axes I, II and III to provide larger amounts of money would be a solution to being more inclusive for multiple sectors.

5.1.5 Networking Question: To which extent LEADER has created linkages between different stakeholders involved (LAGs and other organization involved in rural development)?

Considering that networking means involving people and strengthening links between them as well as coordinating communities and enabling constant feedback, the information that resulted from the interviews and the focus group in this regard is mixed. LEADER allows coordinating residents in the area. During the call for proposals there is a core group of people (the head members of the LAG) who disseminate information and afterwards provide consultancy to individuals/groups living in the territory for drafting project so that the efforts and initiatives that influence the development of the region are coordinated. With regards to strengthening the links between actors, networks are generally strong in each village because they are small and people know each other personally. In addition, LEADER provides the opportunity for strengthening the links across villages in the territory as the program unites people who would have otherwise not worked together. However, the dynamic in the territory is not only positive, there are people who are not members of the LAG and who have similar aspirations but nevertheless have united in a group because they do not want to cooperate within the current structure. Additionally, there seems to be a concentration of links at the higher levels of the LAG and limited efforts to foster interaction; both hinder a thorough inclusion of actors. Moreover, the strength of the networks that LEADER has created is uncertain. Peopleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s opinion was divided concerning whether cooperation would continue if LEADER ends. Some believe that it would not be possible because people need a formal system that encourages cooperation and because there would be no money to run the main office; the skeptical voices regarding the discontinuation of cooperation suggest that the framework for cooperation that LEADER offers makes people interact artificially and that perhaps people would not cooperate if LEADER was not in place. On the positive side, others think that cooperation would continue because the willingness to collaborate has already 26

been ‘installed’. Overall, the degree to which people would cooperate without LEADER is unknown but what is certain is that created more links between actors and greater possibilities to get together. Last, but not least, enabling constant feedback and transparent handling of information matters for successful cooperation. In this case, the means for providing feedback exist but they would be used more actively if participation was greater. For example, if everyone was actively involved they would provide feedback whenever there are changes in the development strategy but this does not happen because the degree of engagement across people varies and so does their understanding about technical issues. Furthermore, with regards to being transparent with information, the LAG manager seemed to make many efforts to maintain people informed but concerning the call for proposals specifically it was how people are chosen. Overall, there is enough space for providing feedback during the meetings of the LAG and addressing the LAG Manager directly is relatively easy but involvement is low at points and some information is not transparent enough. 5.1.6 Cooperation Question: To what extent has LEADER promoted cooperation activities as transfer of information, good practices and know-how between rural areas? When it comes to the feature related to cooperation between the different actors involved in Rožňava, few findings have been drawn from the interviews conducted and the focus group discussion. First of all, LEADER created a platform for cooperation, bringing actors that would have not worked together without the help of LAGs, even though they share similar backgrounds, identities and objectives. In addition to that, it is clear that concrete actions that strengthen cooperation have been undertaken such as the organisation of trips to Romania, Hungary, Czech Republic etc. to develop cross-border exchanges for capacity building and experience sharing to develop partnerships not only within the territory but between LAGs. This broadens the LAGs’ scope of cooperation from the territory level to the international level. When it comes to setting up partnership structures and bodies, the LAG brings different actors together to work for the same goal. Public actors, such as the municipalities help their experience with administrative procedures and burdens, and they cooperate with private actors who might have useful networks and experience in project management. Finally, the cooperation between the actors can also be observed at the calls for proposals stage, where the LAGs offer consultancy to project holders or consultants offer their services to the LAGs, regardless of their sector, to increase the chances that their applications would be approved by the APA. Cooperation is also valuable at the following stage, where the APA approves – or not – the project applications, since it is easier to go through LAGs that become an interlocutor between the final beneficiaries and the APA, communicating the agency’s decisions to the project holders. This creates better links between the authorities and the beneficiaries through facilitation of the LAGs. Nevertheless, if the cooperation has been strengthened in the studied LAG territory, there are still obstacles that obstruct it. The heavy and costly bureaucracy is the first one, which discourages local initiatives, even with the assistance of the LAG to the project holders. The second one is the misunderstanding of the LAGs’ role, and LEADER in general, in the sense that very often, cooperation happens only thanks to the financial incentive that it brings, especially from the private actors’ point of view. In fact, usually the only incentive for them to cooperate with the other local actors through LAGs is the co-financing.

5.1.7 Innovation

Question: Is the innovation clearly understood / embraced by LAGs’ participants and LEADER beneficiaries? And, to what extent LEADER has allowed innovative initiatives in the rural sector?

At the RDP level we found that the LEADER National Strategy clearly encourages the innovation among Local Development Strategies and stimulates LAGs to support innovation. However, the problem is the lack of knowledge and understanding of the concept itself by the different stakeholders that we interview. Innovation is not really understood among LAG beneficiaries, thus this fact limits the possibility of promote and support ideas in the rural sector. We are based these findings in the fact that all the interviewees answer that innovative projects had been implemented in the region but these projects are mainly restoration of accommodations, cultural houses or playgrounds. LAG member’s tent to confuse “new projects” with “innovative projects”, both LAG participant and beneficiaries are not able to define clearly what an innovative project is. At LAG level we found that the LAG management staff and members are open to support and finance “innovative” projects, although they have limited budget for innovative ideas. The few innovative projects that we found such as promotion video about the traditions in the regions or a game for children have been carry out by the LAG manager, this fact shows their implications to promote and develop innovative projects. 5.2 Focus Group The focus gorup took place in Jablonov nad Turňou on July 30, 2014. The purpose of this focus group was to establish a picture of the effects and impact that the European LEADER program has had on Civic Association Kras Local Action Group. Members, beneficiaries, mayors, and other actors were invited, 14 people were present. The Focus Group was designed in a form that encouraged the participation of everyone and generally the participation was very good. There were a total number of twelve participants, gender and ages were varied. The first item we wanted to find out is which new things the LEADER program has brought to the area serviced by the Local Action Group. These are the main points raised. 1. The possibility for education - numerous participants were able go on an international outing New capacities, thank to education, they could build new capacities – all participants mentioned this. 2. Promotion of the area - different promotion material, spreading the word about the territory, making it better known - creation of promotion of material eg. books, DVD, t-shirts, leaflets, bags, cups, stickers (3 tables had bingo) 3. Financial support - investment into the territory - not just the money for the territory but also for the offices (3 tables had bingo) 4. New friendships, and new partnerships in the territory - the dynamic is not only positive, group forming that have opposite ideas - people outside of LAG (it will take 10 years or more for others to understand each other and we can reach agreement- they want the same thing, but not cooperate with us, the results have to convince them that we are doing the best) (2 tables had bingo) 5. Sharing the natural resources - added value products - organize markets for local products, interest or demand because people realize that local products are good. (3 tables had bingo)

6. Preservation of local customs and traditions - eg. weaving, cow bells, shepherd sticks, recipes, gastronomy. ( 2 tables had a bingo) 7. Development of tourism - renew and build accommodation and facilities (3 tables had bingo) 8. Job creation through tourism 9. Bottom up approach in decision-making - decide their own money - creativity with it (two tables had bingo) 10. Branding of regional products 11. Infrastructure development - including agriculture (2 tables had bingo) 12. Reduced rural-urban migration - Overall, it became clear LEADER implementation helps keep people in the area.

Chapter 6: SWOT analysis After collecting and analysing all the information from the field work, the two groups came together to develop SWOT analysis for the features of LAG based on the findings. In the rural development, the SWOT analysis is slightly different from business oriented SWOT analyses, since there is a need to take into consideration the dynamics of the rural development process. Following this idea, strengths and weakness were referred to the current situation of the rural area while opportunities and threats will refer to the future situation. This way we take into account the issue of change that should be addressed both internally and externally. In the following tables, this type of analysis is done to extract the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats of the territories which are taken into consideration

6.1 Area Based Strengths

 

Weakness



Opportunities

   

Threats

  

The territory has common identity and there is adequate information available about the potential of area. LEADER funding has enforced identification to the territory and it has facilitated the increase of awareness for the development of particular areas. Limited human resources in terms of knowledge, skill, innovation, information etc. Lack of understanding between ethnicities within territory. LEADER can promote strong socio-economic linkages within the territory which creates economic virtuous circles and provides locales heritage preservation. Enforcing Socio Economic strengths, encourages immigration which maintains and encourages population retention within the territory. Limited prospects for a better integration and communication due to ethnic conflicts within the territory. This lead to improper diagnosis to reflect the real situation. Limited local financial resources. Public procurement law: lowest bid wins (cooperation to arrange the competition in the interested individuals’ favour). This is due to the guidelines which limit the numbers of measures implementable.

6.2 Bottom Up

Strengths

 

There is an opportunity for all members of community to engage in decision making. Incentives to direct participation of local population in development of the territory exist. 30

Weakness

  

Lack of capacity to include individuals in the process as to achieve full participation. Unintended exclusion of non-members as they do not benefit much from LAG projects. Apparent information gap for people involved in the LAG.

Opportunities



Generation of linkages and capacity building for local development will improve better communication thus leading to greater participation.

Threats

   

Top-down decision making. Tendency to create elites within the territory. Discouraging processes and high bureaucracy: especially APA. Guidelines impede the participation of local stakeholders.

6.3 Public-Private Partnership (PPP)

Strengths



Creates a framework for cooperation between both public and private sectors.

Weakness



Administrative burden/complicated control mechanism decreases incentives for involvement of private actors. Low level of awareness of private sector of their role in the development of the region. Private sectors failing to realize that the visibility is an important aspect of their participation.

 

Opportunities

 

Threats

Creation of synergies between sectors, pooling of resources results in inclusive development of the territory. It will be better for the future projects provided stronger PPP.

 Limited choice of measures (RDP): Private actors are not necessarily interested in the chosen measures under RDP level  Limited available funding (RDP)  50% private funding (RDP), 50% private fund: less incentives to launch future projects  Limited available funding (small projects): less involvement of private actors (mentality private actors not in line with LEADER-direct profit based vision of private actors) to the borderlines and giving wrong idea about LEADER through its budget allocation.  Eligibility costs strengthen borderlines between sectors.

6.4 Multi-sector design

Strengths



The approach in itself is integral which meant to integrate all/many sectors with strategic thinking at the designs of LDS. 31

Weakness

 

Restrictive choices of initiatives because only Axis 3/4 measures are allowed. Lack of possibilities to integrate initiatives in different sectors, due to the guidelines and measurements covered by LEADER.

Opportunities

 

There is opportunity for integration and broadening of all measures All sectors can be heard and integrated into common projects.

Threats

 No integrated implementation due to guidelines.

6.5 Networking

Strengths

 Helps actors who would not normally know each other to connect and work together.  Increases awareness of actors/stakeholders in the area beyond the municipal level.

Weakness

  

Network takes place at higher level (cf. LAG ≠ FB). Dynamic impedes inclusion of all actors (it is exclusive as it does not support clusters). Limited efforts to foster network among beneficiaries/actors.

Opportunities

 

Creates initiatives for development of potential markets. Knowledge and experience exchange between different regions, territories and countries.

Threats



Public procurement law can hinder networking because of conflicts of interests

Strengths



Concrete incentive and measures that encourage exchange

Weakness



Opportunities

 

Bureaucratic burdens (E.g. attempt to cooperate with CZ LAG, but was made impossible because of heavy bureaucracy) Unequal funding from one LAG to the other Enhanced visibility from Pooling of capacities, resources and exchange of knowledge. Broadening the scope of cooperation beyond LEADER, from LAG level to independent level.

6.6 Cooperation



Threats



Bureaucratic burdens are increased substantially which threat cooperation (E.g. attempt to cooperate with CZ LAG, but was made impossible because of heavy bureaucracy).



Willingness of LEADER to implement innovative project in territory (LEADER includes concepts for innovation). Existing resources used in an innovative way which generates capacity to get support for the territory.

6.7 Innovation

Strengths



Weakness



Relativity of the definition of "innovation" concept and Lack of capacity at territorial level to be innovative, therefore few projects are implemented.

Opportunities



Threats



LEADER fosters capacity to support innovation. New ideas can bring in more investments, encourage creativity and make better use of resources Limited choice of innovation approach in the guidelines threatens the innovation.

Chapter 7: Conclusions and recommendations The main purpose of this research was to perform an “Ex post evaluation of Leader approach delivery”. In order to complete the task the research team carried out a thorough assessment of the effects of the delivery mechanism on the implementation of LEADER, which consists of 7 key features - at RDP5 and LAG6 level. The previous chapter consisting of the SWOT is a prelude to this final conclusions chapter. In this section recommendations for improving the implementation of LEADER are included. However it is important to note that, given the fact that the LEADER approach consists of 7 features, there is no one single conclusion or recommendation regarding its delivery. Instead, conclusions and recommendations concerning each feature have been prepared as the final result of this research and are presented next following the same order that has been used throughout the report.

7.1 Area-based Question: Do LEADER interventions reflect the needs, diversity and interest of the territory? Conclusions

LEADER is supporting the territorial cohesion and self-identity of the territories, being a useful tool to integrate different types of visions, opinions and interest towards to boost development and social cohesion in rural areas. The LAG is able to identify the real needs and expectations of territory actors; however, the participation of different stakeholders is not as broad as it could be. One of the main reasons for this could be the reduced spectrum of available measures to implement through LEADER. The reduced availability of qualified human resources endangers the capacity of LAG to implement comprehensive interventions that address efficiently the identified needs (high dependence on LAG Manager). LAGs are allocating funds to restore/improve public goods (municipal houses, small roads, bus stops, etc.) instead of target more strategic interventions towards to strengthen local development. This situation misleads the purpose of LEADER, creates a distortion on public funds responsibilities and discourages the participation of other private and society actors.

Recommendations

More incentives as a broaden the ‘menu’ of eligible measures, adding funds from other AXIS to the LEADER approach or others that the MA and APA considers feasible could be helpful to strengthen the cohesion of the territory. To keep supporting the activities that promotes common identity and collective goals within the LEADER territories. Maintain the concentration of resources at local level, ensuring enough support to develop the local capacities. Analyze alternatives to increase the amount of ‘seed capital’ provided by LAGs

5 6

RDP – rural development programme LAG – local action group

to private ventures in the territory; harnessing the local initiatives and creating the conditions for pondering alternative sources of employment or income.

7.2 Bottom Up Question: In what extent LEADER approach has reinforced participatory approaches based on the subsidiarity principle? Conclusions

The decision making process allows for participation of different actors within the LAGs. However, there is still room for improvement at the moment of sharing information about LAG activities and stimulate the participation of non- members. Despite of the effort conducted by LAGs to spread out the information about strategy and its priorities, there is still scope of improve the capacity to identify the strategic needs of the territory. This situation might lead limited possibilities to participate in the decision making process. Due to existence of intricate bureaucratic processes, the capacities of final beneficiaries are limited to be independent. There is a high dependence on LAG Management structure. Guidelines dictate type of projects and measures and the territories are not consulted during identification of national priorities. This gap between LAG, APA and MA is reducing the possibilities for Community-based organizations and potential beneficiaries to participate in decision- making. Although LEADER approach has been key to provide concrete tools for local stakeholder to address their own development goals, there is still a wide scope of decision that are not respond to the subsidiarity principle (beneficiaries are not always involved in strategy design and project approval instances).

Recommendations

All the actors (LAGs, APA, and MA) should continue maintaining all the different means of information dissemination. However, it is quite important to develop events that ensure widespread awareness about LAG strategies, population needs, procedures and participatory tools. National Guidelines should include measure from other CAP Axis. This adjustment would provide a more chances to potential beneficiaries to access funds and technical support from the LAGs. As a result, the Local Development Strategy could be more diverse and adapted to the needs of the beneficiaries. National LEADER Guidelines should include a certain mandatory measures in which the LAGs encourage capacity building activities with potential beneficiaries and members about how to connect the needs of different stakeholders and Local Development Strategy.

7.3 Public Private Partnership 35

Question: How effective has been the collaboration between public and private sectors in LEADER implementation? Conclusions

LEADER institutionalized the collaboration between the private and the public sectors. This framework had a multiplier effect on the public investments. LAGs are allocating funds to restore/improve public goods (municipal houses, small roads, bus stops, etc.) instead of target more strategic interventions towards to strengthen local development. This situation misleads the purpose of LEADER, creates a distortion on public funds responsibilities and discourages the participation of other private and society actors. Nevertheless, the reason for existence of Public-Private Partnership is misunderstood and participation of the private sector is driven by subsidies

Recommendations

Public-Private Partnership should be based on other considerations like shared objectives rather than finances. Analyze alternatives to increase the amount of â&#x20AC;&#x153;seed capitalâ&#x20AC;? provided by LAGs to private ventures in the territory, harnessing the local initiatives and creating the conditions for potential alternative sources of employment or income.

7.4 Multi-sector design Question: To which extent LEADER has been able to integrate different sectors? Conclusions

LEADER is encouraging the inclusion of different sector in the design of the local development strategy. However, in practice, due to the narrow options of measures, it is difficult to bring this feature into action. At the same time, broadening the range of measures to choose from is not the only solution to the weak sectorial diversification within LEADER projects in Slovakia. In fact, this is also due to financially led motivations of some sectors that cannot derive subsidies from LEADER.

Recommendations

Open a discussion on the possibility of increasing the flexibility of the measures included in LEADER (cf. New EU guidance for the upcoming period 2014-2020)

7.5 Networking Question: To which extent LEADER has created linkages between different stake holders involved (LAGs 36

and other organization involved in rural development)? Conclusions

LEADER has created the opportunity to strengthen and develop the linkages within and between the villages in the same territory, but also between the actors directly and indirectly in the LAGs. However, depending on the territories, these networks are more or less strong, in the sense that the work undertaken by the different communities would â&#x20AC;&#x201C; or not â&#x20AC;&#x201C; continue without the existence of the LAG in the future. Furthermore, there is a contradiction between the encouragement of linkagesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; creation from the LEADER side and the strict regulations on public procurement that might not always allow the local competences to engage in the development of their territories.

Recommendations

There are two issues that the management of the LAG must work harder in solving: feedback/information flow and the overall involvement of various groups of actors. Certainly there are many attempts to provide information and increase engagement, but there should be more significant and explicit efforts so that the links between people are stronger. At the legislative level, the public procurement clause should be readapted, taking into account the requirements of LEADER in strengthening local networks.

7.6 Cooperation Question: To what extent has LEADER promoted cooperation activities as transfer of information, good practices and know-how between rural areas? Conclusions

Cooperation has been promoted through concrete initiatives between different actors and territories; LAGs have strengthened the linkages and networks that are most likely to keep on working in the future and sustaining further cooperation. This has also enhanced an increased sharing of knowledge, experience and capacities, inside and outside the LAG territories. However, the excessive bureaucratic burdens can compromise the capacity of the LAGs to encourage this feature. In addition to that, the misunderstanding on how cooperation can benefit the territory in other way regardless of the financial one. This issue could discourage cooperation between partners that do not have equal financial support.

Recommendations

bureaucratic burdens to make regulatory requirement more bearable for the LAGs and the final beneficiaries. Finally, it is also important to keep on sustaining and broadening networks that promote and deepen the cooperation between all the stakeholders.

7.7 Innovation Question: Is the innovation clearly understood/embraced by LAGs participants and LEADER beneficiaries? â&#x20AC;&#x201C; In what extent LEADER has allowed innovative initiatives in the rural sector in Slovakia? Conclusions

In general, LAGs are supportive to finance innovative projects, but those projects are not able to materialize due to lack of financial support, time constraints and misunderstanding of the concept of innovation.

The National LEADER guidelines have not defined clearly the concept of innovation and the characteristics that one innovative project has. The LEADER National Guidelines seems to be not precise on defines the concept and provides illustrative examples to LAGs with concrete experiences. (RDP level). Different definitions of innovation might cause confusion among LAG participants and beneficiaries, misleading the results of LEADER within the areas. (LAG Level). At LAG level, despite of the openness of members to receive innovative proposals, there are not particular promotion mechanisms (within the call for proposals, budget) that encourage beneficiaries to present an innovative ideas. (LAG Level). The low participation of young inhabitants (under 30 years old) in the LAG might lead the decrease of innovative proposals included in LDS and further projects. Limited available measures defined by the guidelines can also be a constraint to develop innovative ideas.

Recommendations

Better communication and information tools and activities should be implemented in order to clarify that the LEADER approach is a method more than a fund. Furthermore, programme authorities should strengthen the technical and financial support for the early and latter stages of cooperation, as trying to dismantle bureaucratic burdens to make regulatory requirement more bearable for the LAGs and the final beneficiaries. Finally, it is also important to keep on sustaining and broadening networks that promote and deepen the cooperation between all the stakeholders.

References ENRD. (2011). Thematic Working Group 4: Delivery Mechanisms of Rural Development Policy. ENRD. (2014). Country information: Slovakia. Opgeroepen op July 2014, van European Network for Rural Development: http://enrd.ec.europa.eu/enrd-static/country/slovakia/en/slovakia_en.html ENRD. (2014). Local Action Groups. Opgeroepen op 2014, van European Network for Rural Development: http://enrd.ec.europa.eu/leader/local-action-groups/ ENRD. (2014). Policy overview 2014-2020. Opgeroepen op July 2014, van European Network for Rural Development: http://enrd.ec.europa.eu/enrd-static/policy-in-action/cap-towards2020/rdp-programming-2014-2020/policy-overview/en/policy-overview_en.html European Commission . (2013). The Rural Development Programme 2014-2020: Draft consultation paper. European Union. European Commission. (2006). Fact sheet: LEADER approach: a basic guide. Belgium: European Communities. European Commission. (2008). The EU Rural Development Policy: Facing the Challenges. European Communities. European Union . (2014). Improving implementation: delivery mechanisms. Opgeroepen op July 2014, van European Network for Rural Development: http://enrd.ec.europa.eu/enrd-static/policy-inaction/improving-implementation/delivery-mechanisms/en/deliverymechanisms_en.html?pdf=true n.d. (2014). Evaluation tools ppt. Nitra Case Study. Gill, P., Stewart, K., Treasure, E., & Chadwick, B. (2008). Methods of data collection in qualitative research: interviews and focus groups. British dental journal, 204(6), 291-295. Kuruczova, A. (2014, July). Powerpoint: LEADER approach in Slowak Republic. Nitra. Schwarz, P. (2014, July). Case Study Slovakia: CAP and RDP in EU and Slovakia. Presentation for Erasmus Mundus. Nitra, Slovakia. Statistics Canada (2013). Data collection methods. Retrieved from: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/edu/power-pouvoir/ch2/methods-methodes/5214773-eng.htm Statistics Canada (2013). Questionnaire design. Retrieved from: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/edu/powerpouvoir/ch2/questionnaires/5214775-eng.htm Statistics Canada ( 2013). Role of interviewers. Retrieved from: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/edu/powerpouvoir/ch2/interviewers-intervieweurs/5214913-eng.htm Statistics office of Slovak Republic. (2012). General characteristics of the KoĹĄice region in 2012. Opgeroepen op July 2014, van Statistics office of Slovak Republic: http://portal.statistics.sk/showdoc.do?docid=33582 Statistics office of Slovak Republic. (2014). Districts. Opgeroepen op July 2014, van Statistics office of Slovak Republic: http://portal.statistics.sk/showdoc.do?docid=82246 Tvrdonova, J. (2014). Powerpoint presentation: EU LEADER approach in 2007 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 2013. Nitra, Slovakia. 39

Annexes -1Final Interview Schedule

ROLES, RESPONSABILITIES: Who asks? Who fills the questionnaire? Who takes extra notes? Introductory sentence (what is the intention of the interview, how much time we will need to complete the interview, thank for the time) The following questions deal with general information about the participant and respond to the implicit question: who is included and to what extent? (feature: area based, multi-sector design, public-private partnership)

Name : Occupation/professional background : Education: School High-school Technical diploma Bachelor degree Master degree PHD degree

Role/involvement in the LAG : Member of the LAG Non Member of the LAG Beneficiaries (public) Beneficiaries (private) Non Beneficiaries

Gender: 40

Gender: Masculine Feminine

Age: 18-30 30-50 > 50

1. Why do you have a Local Action Group? (feature: networking, cooperation, area based)

a. Do the members/does the community have a common goal? YES NO

(Which? why?) 2. In case you are a LAG member, how often do you meet? Where? (feature: public-private partnership, networking, cooperation, bottom-up)

Higher authority With LAG

With beneficiaries

Others APA, Ministry, â&#x20AC;Ś

Weekly Once a month Every 3 month Other

3. In case you are not LAG member, how frequent is your interaction with LAG? 41

4. Who is included / involved in the LAG and to what extend? (percentage/perception)

Age: 18-30 30-50 > 50 Gender: Masculine Feminine Occupation: Primary Sector: Agricultural, Forestry Secondary Sector: Industry Tertiary Sector: Service, commerce Fourth Sector: Education Geography: Geographical representativeness

5. How do you reach agreements in the LAG? (feature: bottom-up, cooperation, public-private partnership)

6. Does the area have a common identity? (social, cultural, economic). (feature: area-based, multi-sector design)

YES NO

7. What is your opinion about how public-private partnerships work in in your Local Action Group? (feature: public-private partnership, cooperation) 42

8. To which extent are you informed/able to provide information? (feature: networking, cooperation, bottom-up)

a. By which means are you informed? b. Is your voice heard? Is the management of your Local Action Group approachable and receptive? 9. How much support does LAG give in the development of proposals (projects, ideas, etc.)? (feature: cooperation, innovation) 10. What kinds of projects are being implemented in your area through your Local Action Group? (feature: multi-sector design, innovation, public-private partnership, cooperastion)

a) Do you think they are innovative and why? 11. How does the Local Action Group support new ideas in general? 12. .What kind of linkages has the Local Action Group created?

-2-

Final Focus Group Screen Play

Time 30 mins

Agenda

Description

Material

Who does what

projector give badges – slides country Intro Country game and name tags/badges Game student presentation (see Projector – below)

Introduction

Overall presentation

Intro focus group members Interactive session 20 mins for BINGO! discussion & 20 mins for gathering of information/setting up the timeline ------------------------- -----------------------25 minutes BRAINSTORMING brainstorming and + writing cards OPEN DISCUSSION 25 min presentation: only what was not already said

-paper -pens Q1: 'What new things has -post-its LEADER brought to your -set the tables area?' -board for post-its -Poster with Q3 + headings -----------------------------Q2: What are the challenges in LEADER implementation? + How could these problems be addressed?

Introduce the dynamic – Moderating : Q1 – Q2 – Q3-prepare tables – collect post-its arrange answers on board – Writing the minutes and summary (x2) :

5mins Conclusion summary + discussion -----------------------

--------------------------INDIVIDUAL EXERCISE

------------------------------

Q3: What will happen if Big flip chart with tomorrow LEADER question and numbered ends? headings (answers) See description below Conclusion and goodbye

Description of Activities Introduction (Country Game): 1. Each student supplies a representative visual of their country. 2. The images are shown to the group members and they are asked if they can identify the place. 44

3. Then they are asked who in our group is from that country. 4. Then the person who is identified (or not!) introduces himself or herself (in Slovak). Bingo: 1. The group members are divided into smaller groups (4-5 per table) and they are given the first question. 2. They have 20-25 minutes to discuss and write their answers on the cue cards given to them. After 25 minutes, the first table is asked to give one answer. 3. Then the other tables have the chance to say BINGO! if they have the same answer. 4. All the answers are then given one by one in the same manner. 5. The students gather the information and put it on a board, in order to be able to provide results.

Brainstorming + Open discussion: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Participants discuss question in groups They write findings in flipchart paper They present the ideas/findings One of the students makes a summary of findings

Individual exercise 1. Big flip chart with question and answers is prepared: What will happen if tomorrow LEADER ends? 1 No 2 Continuation 3 Continuation 4 Continuation Comments continuation without money ( with other with own money volunteers) money (external)

2. Each participant receives one post-its for writing number of answer (secret voting) and their comments 3. Students collect post-its and write votes in flipchart and place comments in flipchart 4. Students summarize findings